Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I thank the Taoiseach for presenting his views on what transpired at the European Union summit on 14 and 15 December. However, my assessment of what transpired there is not nearly as sanguine as that of the Taoiseach. While he presented the summit as a great success, that is not my opinion.

In recent years, European Council summits have tended to be statements of collective aspiration rather than celebrations of achievement and progress. The great European project is becalmed. The Dutch and French torpedoing of the constitutional treaty has damaged the great ship which is moving around in circles, rudderless and in need of urgent repair to give it new direction.

At the European Council meeting on 15 and 16 June 2006, it was clear that none of the 25 Heads of State present had the answer. When they could not decide what to do next, they decided to do nothing other than to officially extend the period of reflection into a period of analysis. The buck did not stop with anyone, but was gingerly passed on to the Finnish Presidency which with equal alacrity passed it on to the German Presidency which is now endeavouring to grapple with the problem in the first six months of 2007. The Germans are cleverly sharing the burden by bringing the Portuguese and Slovenians on board in a kind of troika of presidencies to seek to resolve the constitutional treaty debacle over the next 18 months.

Nobody suggested that France and the Netherlands should face the stark but simple choice faced by Ireland after it rejected the Nice treaty in 2002. A second vote was Ireland's only option, but it has never even been considered for the two states in question, which were members of the original group of six countries. The 25 Heads of State were content, on 14 and 15 December 2006, to tiptoe around the issue. It was agreed that the Finnish Presidency should pass on its assessment of consultations with member states regarding the constitutional treaty to the German Presidency. The German Presidency in turn will invite European affairs Ministers, including Ireland's Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, for separate and secret talks to try to narrow the differences on the constitutional issue. The German Presidency hopes to produce a report at the end of its tenure in June 2007 that functions as a roadmap for resolving the crisis in future presidencies and before the European Parliament elections in 2009.

However, a group of 18 countries that have ratified the constitution, including Ireland and Portugal, met on 26 January in Madrid to promote the treaty and discuss other revisions to the text that might accommodate the concerns of France and the Netherlands. A further meeting is planned for Luxembourg in February. Clearly, the European Union risks a rapid division into two camps, one consisting of friends and promoters of the constitution, the other sceptical and revisionist. That is a real danger if the German Presidency cannot make progress in the near future.

The constitutional conundrum can be resolved in only one way, namely, through enhancing the constitutional treaty, and certainly not by delusion. Cherry-picking the current constitutional proposals can only end in tears and confusion. If, however, major new initiatives are grafted onto the treaty, they will expand and enhance its value and significance. The new added value might be acceptable to those countries that have already ratified it and to those, like Ireland, that have refrained from doing so thus far, despite being in favour.

One such added-value component was proposed by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, when he addressed the National Forum on Europe on 21 December 2006 following the summit. He argued that the treaty should contain additional provisions on energy and the environment and that, in view of the urgent action required on climate control and the United States' failure to take seriously the Kyoto Protocol, the EU should firmly grasp world leadership on the issue. The same point was echoed by Deputy Sargent, leader of the Green Party, who addressed the forum on 1 February, calling for an energy revolution led by the EU.

While climate control and global warming are clearly the issues of the day, there are others that might well add value to an enhanced treaty. Global poverty is the scandal of our times. It is the product of natural disasters, bad economics, mismanagement, ignorance and a lack of leadership. It need not be so in a world of plenty, however. The EU should take a central role in eliminating world poverty. Those two protocols alone could lend fresh momentum and focus to the constitutional treaty and would not in any way infringe basic trust in it.

The December 2006 European Council reaffirmed the importance of commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome to confirm the values of the European integration process. What better way to do so than by restating the principles of the founding fathers in a new set of modern, idealistic objectives? Regarding enlargement, a major part of summit discussions, the Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, commented as follows:

Enlargement makes Europe stronger on the world stage. Enlargement is the most important tool to bring peace and stability on our continent. Ours will remain an open house.

The summit leaders welcomed the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, which joined on 1 January 2007 in the fifth enlargement of the EU. However, most of the wealthier EU states, including Ireland and Britain, had already closed their labour markets to the 30 million newcomers for the immediate future. Enlargement was quietly put on the back burner as summit leaders pledged to consider the EU's ability to maintain and deepen its own development before admitting new members. That will require the European Commission to undertake impact assessments of how a candidate state's membership would affect the Union's key policies. Stricter conditions will be applied to future enlargements, and the EU will refrain from setting target dates for accession until talks are close to completion.

That will almost certainly mean that no new members will be admitted before the EU's institutions have been reformed, that is, until the question of the constitutional treaty has been resolved. The new gospel of "integration capacity" agreed at the summit will have a negative impact on the Balkan states, which had been hoping to accede within a few years, and that is most unfortunate. Furthermore, a partial suspension of negotiations with Turkey has put its accession prospects firmly on the long finger. That was all agreed at a summit proclaimed a great success.

The area of freedom, security and justice was also accorded a great deal of time at the summit, with discussions on the constant and growing expectations of citizens who wish to see concrete results in matters such as cross-border crime and terrorism, as well as immigration — I am paraphrasing the bumf issued following the summit discussions. There was agreement that existing co-operative measures were not satisfactory. Cross-border crime, drug-trafficking, money-laundering, trafficking in children and women and illegal immigration, it was thought, were not being tackled effectively by existing controls, structures and policies. Everyone agreed with that contention at the summit.

The Finnish Presidency proceeded to seek to eliminate the national veto on decision-making in the area of justice and police co-operation, but European leaders resisted any change and jealously guarded national sovereignty on the matter. However, they pledged to move towards a comprehensive European migration policy and closer co-operation on immigration. Member states were determined they retain control of their external borders and resisted the concept of a common EU immigration policy.

Crime and immigration are of critical concern to citizens throughout the EU. The removal of national borders has greatly increased the capacity for transnational illegal activity. However, there has been corresponding enhancement of border controls or policing. Co-operative policing covering different jurisdictions has been unsatisfactory and ineffective, and the states meeting at the summit were well aware of that.

The EU international comparative crime survey published this week showed Ireland at the top of the comparative league of crimes in European states. There is a very significant EU transnational aspect to the figures. Virtually all illegal drugs are imported into Ireland, as there is no indigenous source. Most of our drug barons are ensconced in bolt-holes in Spain, the Netherlands and Britain. Police forces in those countries are not seriously engaged in bringing such criminals to justice, and we know how famously loath policemen are to share confidential information on criminals. Consequently, they export their deadly products to Ireland from safe havens in those countries.

A failure to address those issues causes widespread resentment and tarnishes the benefits of EU membership. There must be a common EU approach to such issues; the citizens of Europe are crying out for that. Clearly, rejection of the constitutional treaty by France and the Netherlands has stopped the EU in its stride. Hard decisions are no longer being taken at summits. Let us compare Ireland's Presidency and the summit of June 2004 with those since. There is no comparison; Ireland's tenure was one of progress, excitement and achievement, while recent summits have been little more than talking shops. It is time to move on. The European Union must be either relevant or redundant.

I will comment on Fianna Fáil before I finish and I am sure the Minister will be glad I am not leaving it out of the equation. Fianna Fáil's membership of the right wing Union for Europe of the Nations, UEN, political grouping in Europe has received some adverse comment and the Taoiseach was questioned on the issue at the summit by journalists. The Italian Northern League and the League of Polish Families, who have recently joined the group, are ultraconservative, racist and homophobic, as is the Danish membership. The apparent reason for the increase in numbers is to boost the group's membership to 44, past the magic number of 41 that allows a group a vice-presidency. These are uneasy bedfellows for an Irish democratic party and perks, privileges and power are not appropriate grounds for sharing membership with those who have no respect or time for democracy.

Fianna Fáil should urgently reconsider its position as it is an embarrassment that the Taoiseach of this country, head of the main Government party, is associated with such a political grouping. Fianna Fáil and the Taoiseach have no option but to leave the UEN and join a proper democratic grouping.

See this speech in context